Favorite Enneagram Theorist

[Elfboy]

personally, I'm partial to Naranjo. he hits to the core and doesn't pull his punches. before coming across his work, I sorted through so much nebulous, white washed shit trying to figure out my core, but Naranjo made it obvious.
apart from practical value, I love the defensive reactions his work gets out of people when he brings up an inconvenient part of their personality

 

[JocktheMotie]

Naranjo for sure.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

My opinion:

Riso and Hudson--they're good, but as a general introduction. I find that their 4 description hits me harder than anyone else I've read. They tend to be money-oriented (or at least Hudson is, Riso recently passed away, I'm sorry to report).
Naranjo--his works had a way of clarifying EXACTLY what the hell I am. He takes the attitude we're all really fucked up and neurotic, which has drawn criticism, but I personally like his reductionist accounting of the types. Very helpful.
Helen Palmer--I appreciate her more nuanced understanding of type 6 (over Riso and Hudson). I've just picked up a copy of one of her books, and I really like how she touches upon the "attention" aspects of each type. It's a different approach and I'm finding it refreshing.
Sandra Maitri--foremost expert in the field. I haven't read her stuff yet, but I tend to disagree with the "soul child approach" based on what I understand of it so far.
Tom Condon--Seems like a solid theorist. I like that so much of his stuff is readily accessible online, and he's been thorough in advocating a proper usage of the system. He's one reason I peg my head-fix at 6w5.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Other - George Gurdjieff

Fourth Way enneagram

 

[Galena]

Listening to a recording of Naranjo really completed my impression. While the descriptors and concepts are sharply worded and neurosis-centered, I was surprised by the "spiritual humor" of his in-person presentation of those very statements that sting so much on paper. At least applicable to the postings I listened to from the RunningFather blog.

Riso/Hudson are a perfect starting point for learners, IMO.

 

[highlander]

That's a hard question. I like Helen Palmer a lot but put down Naranjo because the depth in Character and Neurosis is the best I've seen.

Riso/Hudson made this consumable for the masses.

Almaas is very good http://www.amazon.com/Facets-Unity-Enneagram-Holy-Ideas/dp/0936713143.

 

[Jaguar]

Jerome Wagner.

 

[brainheart]

Riso and Hudson's general instinct explanations are the best. I also like their levels of health for type, they seem quite accurate to me. In that way they can help increase self-awareness and self-monitoring.

Naranjo is better for core type motivation and exposing people at their worst, although he's too in love with Freud for my tastes. With him I think it's important to remember that most of what he says is metaphorical not literal, and I think a lot of people have a hard time grasping that. You have to think big picture with Naranjo, not specifics. Lots of extroverted intuition leaps in his thinking and associations.

When I read Naranjo I was torn between 4w5 and 5w4 for myself. He made the core four obvious once I read about fours being more 'wet' in their sorrow while fives sorrow is more 'dry'. (I'm paraphrasing, I can't remember what it was exactly.) Also what he said about sexual fours qualities being close to borderline personality disorder*. When I'm unhealthy the borderline traits kick in, for sure. When I'm healthier, though, it's harder to see. That's another thing about Naranjo, you really have to focus on how you are at your worst.

*Overall, the features of BPD include unusually intense sensitivity in relationships with others, difficulty regulating emotions, and impulsivity.